Floor Statements

Mr. President, while Senator Durbin is still on the floor, I wish to say very briefly that we came to the House of Representatives a few years ago in 1983, and we didn't get a lot of time to speak on the House floor--maybe 1 minute a day if we were lucky. We would say when we were debating, when we agreed with somebody: I would like to be associated with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois.

I would very much like to be associated with the remarks of the Senator from Illinois.

I served three tours in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. We have most-favored-nation trading status, and they enjoy most-favored- nation trading status with us today.

I like to work out and run. I like to run in the mornings. The mornings I stay here, I run down to the Lincoln Memorial, come back by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and I am reminded of the 55,000 lives that we lost in that war. Yet we enjoy normal diplomatic relations with that country, and they

enjoy most-favored-nation status with us. If we can come to this point with Vietnam--after all the loss of life and cost--we should certainly be able to move things along with Cuba. So I applaud what the Senator has said.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to S. 299.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to bring a clean fiscal year 2015 bill for the Department of Homeland Security to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

Earlier this month the world watched in horror as terrorists massacred journalists and other innocent civilians in and around Paris. In December we were stunned as computers at a major corporation, Sony Entertainment, were attacked by North Korea. Over the past year, as recently as last week, in fact, we witnessed brutal executions at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

These events illustrate all too well that the threats faced today by America and by our allies are real. As a former chairman and now ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I know this to be the case.

Nearly 12 years ago, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security--we call it DHS-- to help secure our Nation and to help ensure that our Nation is protected against these continuing and evolving threats.

Given the origins of the Department, the work the men and women do there every day to keep us safe, and the grave nature of the threats our country faces, it is shocking to me and disappointing to me that we are here today having this debate.

We are now discussing ways we can make the Department and its employees more effective. We are not discussing how we can enable them to work better. Senator Coburn and those with whom we served in the last Congress did that throughout the year.

Senator Johnson and I did that just yesterday with our first hearing on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee this year. Unbelievably, as we focused on cyber security attacks, we are debating whether to give this key national security agency funding for the remainder of the fiscal year.

In order for that Department to efficiently and effectively carry out its critical role, it needs adequate and reliable funding. They need it. Another short-term budget--or even worse, another shutdown--would be bad for the Department and bad for employee morale--very bad. More importantly, though, it would pose a grave threat to our security.

Instead of sending us a straightforward clean funding bill for the Department, the House has unfortunately sent us a bill that includes a number of amendments aimed at undermining the President's immigration policies.

Many of our colleagues on both sides have significant concerns with these amendments, and the President has indicated that he would veto the funding bill if the amendments stay attached to it. Thus, these amendments jeopardize passage of the bill, and they threaten to prolong the crippling budget uncertainty the Department of Homeland Security has operated under.

The Department of Homeland Security already has a lot to say grace over. We do them no favor by playing games with their budget.

I understand why some of our colleagues are upset about the President's immigration policies, and we should have a debate about those concerns. But first we should be doing what we have been asked to do by giving the Department of Homeland Security the resources that it needs to keep Americans safe in an ever more dangerous world.

Two of our colleagues, Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Barbara Mikulski, have introduced a clean appropriations bill that mirrors funding provisions of the House bill. Overall, funding provisions in their bill, S. 272--which I understand both Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee agreed to last year, last December--in fact, provides for $39.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. That is an increase of $400 million above last year's funding, but this measure is more than just a funding bill.

To my colleagues who want to do what we can now to protect our country from the kinds of attacks we have been seeing around the world of late, I say: Support a clean DHS funding bill.

To our colleagues who want reforms at the U.S. Secret Service, I say: Support a clean DHS funding bill. A clean bill would provide the resources the Secret Service needs to carry out much-needed reforms in the wake of the most recent White House fence-jumper incident and other security lapses.

To my colleagues whose States need to recover from this week's blizzards or to prepare for the next storm, let me just say: Support a clean DHS funding bill.

We need to ensure that FEMA and our States have access to nearly $2.6 billion in grants to respond to future disasters--both natural and manmade.

To my colleagues who want stronger border security and immigration enforcement, a clean DHS funding bill is what we ought to be rallying around. The clean bill put forward by Senator Shaheen and Mikulski would take additional measures to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws, something I know is a priority to me and, I think, to all of our colleagues. In fact, most of the funding increase in the Shaheen-Mikulski bill would go to border security and immigration enforcement.

The bill our colleagues have put forward contains a little more than $10 billion for Customs and Border Protection, an increase of approximately $118 million above last year's enacted level. This funding level would support the largest operational force level for the Agency in its history--maintaining over 21,000 Border Patrol agents and supporting the new funding level for nearly 24,000 officers.

The Shaheen-Mikulski bill would also enable Customs and Border Protection to fly more patrols along our maritime and land borders and to continue purchasing new force-multiplying gear and equipment. It would also increase funding for critical surveillance technologies along our border, especially along areas such as the Rio Grande Valley, by some $20 million.

As our colleagues will recall, last year our Nation saw tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and families from Central America come to our southern border. This clean full-year funding bill would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement $689 million more than last year's funding to help address the additional needs associated with that surge. Specifically, it includes $3.4 billion for immigration detention and funds 34,000 adult detention beds.

The Shaheen-Mikulski bill would also fully fund the employment eligibility verification system, known as E-Verify, which helps businesses to ensure they are hiring legal employees.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently said--and I fully agree with him--that to deny his Department full-year funding would actually hurt our border security.

We cannot continue to default to short-term continuing resolutions and force the Department to cut corners and scramble to fund its highest priorities. As we have learned over these years, stopgap crisis budgeting is an egregious waste of money. Let me say that again--an egregious waste of money. By shutting down the Department or keeping it on a continuing resolution, we will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, including the cost of renegotiating contracts, lost employee and contractor productivity, and lost training. For example, it would delay the award of a $600 million contract to build a national security cutter that the Coast Guard needs.

But there is more than just a financial impact. The dramatic consequences of failing to provide full-year funding for the Department will be felt throughout our country. While most of the Department's workforce will continue to perform essential functions in the event of a shutdown, the bulk of its management and administrative support activities would cease and frontline personnel would not receive the support they need. It would be like trying to fight a war without planners,

without logistics, and without supplies. It would be like us here in the Senate working without our staffs. We might be able to find a way to get our work done, but we wouldn't be as effective. And those at DHS who are required to come to work if a shutdown were to occur would not be paid until Congress restores funding. Essentially, a large part of our Federal homeland security efforts would be operating under an IOU.

A stopgap budget or a shutdown would also further degrade employee morale at the Department of Homeland Security. As many of us know, the Department continues to rank dead last--dead last--among all other large Federal agencies when it comes to workforce morale.

While Secretary Johnson, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, and their team are taking important steps to make the agency a better place to work-- and we are helping them--the Department still lacks a strong sense of cohesion and a sense of team. But Congress too has a responsibility. Providing this large and complex agency the funding it needs would be a terrific next step.

If my colleagues and I expect the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to show improved outcomes, we cannot continue to play games with their budgets and expect them to not feel the negative consequences. No business owner or manager could be expected to be effective and efficient under these conditions. The leadership of the Department of Homeland Security is no exception.

A clean Homeland Security funding bill for the rest of the fiscal year is the fiscally responsible step to take. If we deny them that funding, we will not be punishing the President. In a sense, we will be punishing a number of the employees. But most of all we will be punishing taxpayers because we are wasting their money and we are diminishing and reducing the kind of security they need in this country today.

Let me just say, don't take my word for this. Our good friend Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security and a former Republican Governor, with whom I served, said:

I would be very, very disappointed if I were Secretary, and

the Democrats did it to me . . . It's pretty difficult to

plan long term when you don't know exactly how much you're

going to have available and what strings might be attached to

it. Give them the funding they need.

And I would say to our Republican colleagues, give them the funding they need.

For these reasons, I urge our colleagues in the Senate to join me in doing the right thing in supporting passage of a clean full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and rejecting the amendments approved by the House. It would be irresponsible for us to continue kicking the can down the road when it comes to national security, and we certainly cannot afford to let this vital agency's funding run out.

I ask my colleagues to think about what we are trying to accomplish by failing to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the funds they need to operate. The American voters sent Congress a clear message on election day. This is what they said: They want us to work together. They want us to get things done. And they especially want us to enhance our economic recovery. Given recent events around the world, they also want us to do all we can to keep them and their families safe. We need to show Americans through our actions here in Washington that we have heard them.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, two Senators from Delaware, back to back-- a double shot.

Amendment No. 120 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up my amendment No. 120.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity today.

My colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, knows that Delaware, until 4 years ago, developed and built more cars, trucks, and vans per capita than any other State in America. We lost within literally 6 months a GM plant that employed thousands of employees and a Chrysler plant that employed thousands of people. Those companies went into bankruptcy.

For a number of years before that and since then, I have gone every year in January to the North American auto show in Detroit. I remember being there half a dozen or so years ago and walking through the demonstrations--they call them the stands--where the auto companies, whether they happen to be domestic, Ford, Chrysler, GM, or companies from Europe or Asia, had on display their vehicles, in some cases the vehicles they were introducing that year for the next buying year, and in some cases concept cars that may never be built but are just interesting, exciting new technologies that are represented in those vehicles.

I have never forgotten about a half dozen years ago walking through this enormous cavernous auto show and coming across what they call the stand where a number of the Honda vehicles were being displayed. One of them was in a makeshift garage. I thought that was interesting. You don't see makeshift garages in the Detroit auto show.

I asked the Honda people, what is this about? They said, imagine a vehicle that is in a garage alongside a house. The technology in this vehicle will actually provide for the propulsion of that vehicle, propel the vehicle, and the fuel this vehicle uses will also cool the house next to this garage in the summer and warm and heat this house in the winter. I said, you are kidding. I said, what kind of technology is this? He said, this is fuel cells. I said, no kidding. Are you really serious about this? He said, yes, we are.

As it turns out, a few years after that, I was back in Delaware at Dover Downs. A lot of people think of Dover Downs now because we have musical festivals. Firefly was there, and we had 80,000 people there. We also have 80,000 people show up for a couple of Sundays every year for the auto show.

A couple of years ago, I was at Dover Downs, and I had a chance to drive around the Monster Mile when no other cars were racing. I drove a GM minivan. The thing that was unique about the GM minivan was how much it cost. I have a Chrysler Town & Country minivan that has about 386,000 miles on it. The vehicle I drove that day had less than 1,000 miles on it, and it was powered by fuel cells.

I said to the guy I was driving with, how much does this vehicle cost if I wreck it? He said, probably $1 million. I said, I better be careful. And right about then somebody came out of the infield and drove right in front of me and scared the guy next to me to death. I was able to avoid a crash.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford have put a lot of money into fuel cell vehicles. One of the people who helped to run GM for a number of years, a fellow named Tom Davis, a longtime friend, when he stepped down from GM several years ago ran the part of the company that dealt with light trucks and SUVs. Almost half of their revenue was generated from those sources.

Earlier this month he and I talked about the future of the auto industry and GM in particular. I said, what do you think the future is for providing propulsion for cars? Is it like the hybrid electric? He said, no, it is not. I said, is it like the diesel electric? He said, no, it is not. I said, is it pure electric? He said, no, it is not. I have said for years that the future is fuel cells. I said, no kidding. That is just like I saw at the auto show years ago and just like the fuel-cell powered minivan I drove at Dover Downs a couple of years after that. He said, that is the future.

It turns out in Japan they have a word that actually means future that they use to describe this technology, and it is called ``mirai.'' Honda and Toyota are betting a little bit of their money--actually quite a bit--just as some of our domestic auto companies are betting some money of their own.

The great thing about this technology is that it reduces the consumption of oil. We are still the leading consumer of oil in the world. A lot of our oil is from foreign sources, and some of it is unstable. I think some of the countries use our money to harm us. This technology has the ability to reduce our dependence on that foreign oil from unstable countries. It has the ability to further clean our air and to offer a great driving experience. I personally experienced it myself all those many years ago in Dover Downs on the Monster Mile.

What I want do today is call up an amendment that will help us to seize the day and to take this technology, which is ready now, to be made commercial and to be introduced on both coasts and across the country in order to provide fuel cell vehicles and to help give it a little push, if you will, through the Tax Code to encourage them to be purchased by our consumers.

There are actually two parts to my amendment. One of those is to provide a $4,000-a-year tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles. In this case I am talking about fuel cells, but it could be electric, and it could be others as well.

The second half of the amendment is to provide the infrastructure. We have heard about fueling stations. Well, these would be infrastructures that would include fueling stations for fuel-cell-powered vehicles.

It is a two-fold amendment. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil, especially from unstable sources. It provides for new investment and for creation of jobs for that new investment. It is something that would help consumers, it would help our domestic auto industry, and it would enable us to compete with the rest of the world.

There are two parts to this amendment--a tax credit of about $4,000 for each vehicle for 5 years, and then an investment tax credit of 30 percent to enable us to build the fueling stations. We have gas and diesel stations all across the country. We need alternative fueling stations, if you will, for these alternative vehicles if they are to realize their potential and we are to realize ours.

Later in the week, I will ask to have the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues keep these arguments in mind, and if they see fit, to support this amendment. I hope they will.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 133 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment to the Murkowski substitute, amendment No. 121.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President and colleagues, you will recall from our debate earlier this evening concerns raised about the equity of--most oil that is consumed and transported through this country or into this country pays a fee. It is an 8-cent-per-barrel fee that goes into the oilspill liability fund. One source of oil that does not pay that 8- cent-per-barrel fee is derived from the oil sands. There has been some discussion of whether--I think there is a fair amount of agreement that that does not seem right, it doesn't seem equitable, and it is not fair to assess an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on all these other sources of oil but not apply that to oil derived from tar sands.

What I seek to suggest with my amendment is that an 8-cent-per-barrel fee be assessed on the oil derived from tar sands and the revenues derived therefrom would be deposited not in the oilspill liability fund but rather in the land and water conservation fund which has been in existence for many years.

I believe the balance in the oilspill liability fund is measured in the billions of dollars. The balance in the land and water conservation fund is not. The moneys are much smaller, much more modest, and that money provides funding in all 50 States. Many of us know the need far outweighs the money appropriated every year for this program.

The land and water conservation fund is also established not just to provide the revenues for national parks--and we are always looking for moneys for national parks. We just expanded our national parks system. How are we going to pay for that? The amendment I hope to offer would help to address that.

The land and water conservation fund was also established to help protect rivers, lakes, and critical habitat for wildlife, areas that may be impacted by the construction of this pipeline or a possible spill from this pipeline or from another spill.

Again, that is what I am asking. I will be concise. No fee is now paid on tar sands oil. I believe it should be the same as that which is assessed against other sources of oil.

What I would suggest is rather than put the moneys derived from that 8 cents on the tar sands oil--rather than that money going into the oilspill liability fund, which is quite robust, to instead deposit that in the land and water conservation fund where we could use it in all 50 States for a variety of good purposes. That is the nature of my amendment. I hope I have the opportunity to offer that amendment.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 1 minute, please.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 73rd Postmaster General of the United States, Patrick ``Pat'' R. Donahoe, upon his retirement, for his leadership, vision and commitment to the U.S. Postal Service, and for his service to our Nation. During his 39-year career, Pat ascended the ranks of the Postal Service and went on to help lead the 239-year-old agency during one of its most challenging periods.

Pat's career with the agency began in 1975, when he started as trainee on a mail-sorting machine in his native Pittsburgh. In 1976 he was hired as a clerk at the same location, and from there he moved up the ranks and went on to hold several leadership positions. Over the years, he has served as Vice President of Allegheny Operations, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, Senior Vice President of Operations, Chief Operating Officer, and Deputy Postmaster General.

In his role as Chief Operating Officer, he helped the Postal Service navigate back-to-back tragedies and challenges to mail operations following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the use of the mail to transmit anthrax. He also played a key role in the recovery efforts following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Before he worked his way up the Postal Service's ranks, Pat graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a bachelor of science in economics. During his time with the Postal Service, he earned his master of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management as a Sloan fellow.

In October 2010, Pat was appointed by his colleagues on the Postal Service Board of Governors to be the Nation's 73rd Postmaster General, PMG. At the time, the outlook for the Postal Service was bleak and its future uncertain. It was hemorrhaging billions of dollars and saw its workforce numbers slashed as it grappled with the rapid transition to electronic communication and the fallout from the great recession in 2009. It was teetering on the edge of collapse, and no one knew how long the Postal Service could hold on. But Pat Donahoe accepted the challenge.

During his 4-year tenure as Postmaster General, Pat proved himself to be a dedicated public servant, a strong leader, and an innovative chief executive with the willingness to make tough calls and hard decisions. He did what was necessary to help the Postal Service keep its lights on and compete in the age of the Internet. He did a remarkable job using limited resources to keep the Postal Service alive during the second worst financial crisis in its history. With the help of a strong team at Postal Service headquarters and in postal facilities across the country, he sought to keep prices competitive, reduced costs, rightsized the enterprise, and explored a number of innovative and successful business endeavors. His efforts have helped guide the centuries-old agency through a remarkable transition that has better prepared it to compete and remain a linchpin of our economy in the digital age. In fact, his work and his vision have put the Postal Service in a position where, with the right tools and authorities from Congress, it can remain competitive and viable for generations to come.

Pat Donahoe had a vision for what the Postal Service could become and never stopped working to build on its potential. During his tenure, the Postmaster General helped bring the Postal Service to a place where it could better meet the demands of the 21st-century customers it serves. He reimaged tried-and-true services to make them more user-friendly and more valuable, like flat-rate shipping and priority mail. He created more opportunities to innovate and grow using the Postal Service's unique distribution network by adding services like Sunday package delivery and by exploring innovative partnerships with companies such as Amazon, FedEx, and UPS.

As someone who has watched the Postal Service both soar and struggle, Pat provided guidance and leadership during tremendously challenging times. Despite the significant financial and legislative restraints that face the Postal Service today, the Postmaster General kept the Postal Service on a course that would enable it to deliver on the high expectations set by the American public.

The PMG has also been a strong voice for the agency and an important partner to Congress during our efforts to pass comprehensive postal reform in the 112th and 113th Congress. He has

worked tirelessly on behalf of the Postal Service's customers, employees, stakeholders, and the 7 to 8 million people whose jobs depend on a healthy and robust Postal Service.

As I worked with my former partner on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Dr. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, in developing comprehensive postal reform legislation, Pat and his staff were indispensable. We could always rely on the PMG and his team to come with little notice to a meeting in the Capitol or to join a late- night or weekend conference call.

As he would probably admit, Pat also took plenty of abuse from some of my colleagues here in Congress, from the press, and from the public. He knew that some of the initiatives he put into place during his tenure as Postmaster General would be unpopular but stuck to his guns because he thought it was the right thing to do. Even in recent days, he has continued to press for what he knows is right and what he knows will sustain the Postal Service in the years to come.

Pat Donahoe has graciously shared decades of his life with the Postal Service and has served the American people well. I sincerely thank him for his dedication, and I deeply appreciate his tireless efforts to help the Postal Service and our country. While Pat is retiring from the Postal Service, his legacy will carry on, and the changes he made will continue to serve the Postal Service and its customers. I wish Pat, his wife Janet, their two sons, and their granddaughters Charlotte and Lucy all the best in the years to come. As we say in the Navy when people complete an especially difficult assignment and sail off into the sunrise, ``Fair winds and a following sea.''

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, over the past few years I have had the great privilege, along with Dr. Tom Coburn, to chair the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Our committee has many responsibilities, one of those being oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department of Homeland Security was created just shy of 12 years ago--a young organization compared to most other agencies. It was established in 2003 following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It brought together under one umbrella 22 different and disparate agencies. Trying to form one unified agency has not been easy. There have been growing pains aplenty. Our current Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Secretary Ali Mayorkas, and their leadership team have made great strides in addressing challenges, and I am confident their hard work will continue and pay off.

Behind the leadership team at the Department of Homeland Security are the more than 200,000 men and women who go to work each day to fulfill one critical mission, to create a safe, secure, and resilient place where the American way of life can thrive. Whether these employees are encountering terrorism, securing our borders and our airports, responding to natural disasters or bolstering our defenses in cyber space, few other agencies and employees touch the lives of Americans on a daily basis more than does the Department of Homeland Security.

As chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have had the great honor and pleasure of meeting with many of these men and women and learning more about their work, learning about their families, their frustrations, and their dedication to the service of our Nation. We have also heard the Department of Homeland Security leadership from across the Department, including Secretary Jeh Johnson, sing their praises and describe the mission-critical work they perform day in and day out in communities across America and around the world.

A young man named Don Marfisi of Kansas City, MO, is one of those employees. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about him and to acknowledge his service. Don grew up in Omaha, NE. He is the son of a civil servant and homemaker. His father worked for the city of Omaha, his brother worked for the Department of Justice, and his son currently works for the Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, MO. Clearly, public service is a deep tradition in his family--and from what I hear, it is something Don takes to heart.

Don began his Federal service more than 24 years ago as a supply clerk with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency in Lincoln, NE. Four years later, in August of 1998, he joined the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice. After a little over 1 year there, he was transferred to Citizenship and Immigration Services in the new Department of Homeland Security. Within Citizenship and Immigration Services, Don works at the National Records Center where he is responsible for logistics, procurement, and property management. We can still find him there today. In fact, his colleagues consider him a ``cave pillar,'' having worked at the Center since opening day.

What does the National Records Center do exactly? According to the Department, it is the keystone to the recordkeeping of the agency for which he serves. We call it USCIS--housing millions of paper records that have been centralized into a single state-of-the-art facility. The Center where Don works improves the integrity of USCIS's recordkeeping and dramatically reduces the time it takes to retrieve a file or paperwork, meaning faster application processing for an agency charged with overseeing our immigration system.

Don's current job title, mission support specialist, doesn't do his work justice. Colleagues say Don is not just a support specialist but an integral part of the National Records Center's mission support team and plays an important role in nearly all the logistics-related projects executed at the center. In this position, he develops and administers best practices for Federal procurement and property management. While he avoids the spotlight, he is highly valued and sought out for his expertise in the asset management field.

Don's colleagues told me, ``Through his painstaking attention to detail and timely responsiveness . . . he has provided a superior level of customer service to local employees and other stakeholders.''

Don's attention to detail ensures that folks within Citizenship and Immigration Services have the tools and resources they need to get their job done. Don's critical eye and expertise in procurement is also credited for saving the government and the taxpayers over $500,000 in fiscal year 2013 and over $800,000 to date in fiscal year 2014. Let me repeat that: Don has saved the American taxpayers in the last 2 fiscal years $1.3 million.

His service and stewardship don't end there. At the same time he is saving the Department and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, he is also finding a way to give back. Along with the money he has been able to trim off the Federal deficit, he has managed to arrange the contributions of nearly $800,000 in equipment to local schools through the GSA Property Disposal Program. Through this program he ensures that unused or older government equipment goes directly to local schools. Because of his efforts, computers and other equipment that would otherwise be trashed are recycled and used to boost education and raise student achievement in schools across the country.

As one can imagine, educators, communities, and the students themselves who receive the equipment have been overjoyed with the generous donations. But don't take my word for it. In 2012 the Miami R- 1 School District, in Amoret, MO, a small K-12 school located on the Missouri border in the middle of cornfields and cow pastures, received $45,000 worth of recycled technology equipment.

Sharon Knuth, the school's technology administrator, wrote to Don saying that her district was ``blessed by the GSA Property Disposal program.'' She added:

We are limited in our funds and budgets so we do not always

have the chance to purchase the latest technology equipment.

Because of your generosity, we will put the computers,

monitors, speakers and plugs to good use. . . . We will grow

and prosper only because we found some great friends like you

who gave us support along the way.

Another school in Chadwick, MO, thanked Don for the ``blessing''-- that is their term--of this new technology they received through his efforts. But there is more. Don was also a member of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Inclusion's Minority Serving Institutions Program team which facilitated more than $1 million in computer equipment donations in the past fiscal year 2014.

Don has been recognized for his extraordinary accomplishments in years past. In 2013, for example, he was recognized as USCIS Employee of the Year and as one of the National Record Center's Employees of the Quarter. Yet despite these great accomplishments and high praise from his colleagues and from people all over the country, Don insisted that every award he has received is a team award. When he learned he was gathering such high praise for his work, his response was:

Being recognized for your efforts is appreciated, however,

I'm the fortunate one, I get to reuse items and give--two

things I enjoy doing.

Like a true leader, this man is humble.

Don remembers something that I learned from Department Secretary Jeh Johnson during his confirmation. I learned that one of Secretary Johnson's guiding principles is a lesson from Dr. Benjamin--known as Bennie--Mays, former president of Morehouse College, who said: ``You earn a living by what you get; you earn a life by what you give.''

Think about that for a second, and then think about this man right here and all the giving he has done throughout his career and his service to our country. I just have to say to Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Department, that you have a remarkable employee. You are blessed with a lot of remarkable employees, and Don is certainly at the top of the list.

Don's service doesn't end at the Department. He has a couple of other critical roles. He is a husband and a dad. He and his wife Pam have been married for 30 years. He has a son, Josiah, and daughter Anna. When he is able to find some well-deserved downtime, he enjoys watching a Big Ten team, the Nebraska Cornhuskers, with his family.

I have to say that as a proud Ohio State graduate, we enjoyed playing you guys this year and look forward to next year--maybe you guys will get some revenge next year.

To Pam, Josiah, and Anna, thank you for sharing your husband and dad with us. He has done extraordinary work for our country and for a lot of communities. We are proud of him, and I bet that you are as well.

Finally, I say to Don Marfisi--on behalf of my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, and a couple of Independents as well, and the folks who work here in the Capitol, even the pages who are sitting at the bottom of the Presiding Officer's desk--we all thank you for what you do for us every day, for your service, and for your immeasurable generosity to our great Nation.

I also wish to thank Alejandro Mayorkas. Ale is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We were meeting with a number of employees at the Department of Homeland Security. They were discussing how to raise morale, although that is not their day job; it is an additional responsibility they have undertaken. The folks at the Department of Homeland Security--for the 12 years it has been in existence--has suffered from low morale, and sadly, still does. I think that is starting to change.

I am an old Navy guy, and I like to say that things that are hard to do are like changing the course of an aircraft carrier. I think the aircraft carrier is starting to turn at Homeland Security.

One of the keys for an organization to do well is to have great leadership. As the Presiding Officer knows, at the beginning of this year, there were gaping holes in the top ranks of the Department of Homeland Security. One of the things Dr. Coburn, the committee, and I did--when the administration would nominate a candidate with good leadership skills--was to bring those nominations to the Senate and debate them and vote them up or down. We have made great progress this year, and I am grateful to Senator Heitkamp for being so supportive and a big part of that process.

We have a vote this afternoon on another critical nomination. Sarah Saldana is a U.S. prosecuting attorney. She leads our operation in the northern part of Texas and oversees 100 counties in her great State. She tries to make sure the Federal laws are enforced across her counties.

She has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary at the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also called ICE. It is a huge job with tens of thousands of employees who work all across America.

I hope when we debate her nomination--she has been supported very graciously by John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, who introduced us to her at our committee hearing--our colleagues will join together in supporting her nomination.

We have this photograph here, and I said earlier this is Don Marfisi in the middle, also known as Pam's husband.

I will be coming to the floor about once a month to talk about this department, which doesn't get the kind of credit it deserves, and the people who work there don't get the credit they deserve. We are trying to make sure that changes, and part of changing the course of the aircraft carrier is to say thanks to the good people at the Department. Don is one of many employees who deserves our thanks.

In this photograph to my right, this handsome young man is Ethan Cole. Ethan is the supervisor for the work that Don and these folks do.

We have here Terry Sloan. She is the Deputy Director of the National Records Center, and we are proud of her and her services. Standing next to Terry is another TC--we have Tom Coburn, Tom Carper, and Tom Cioppa. I think when this picture was taken, Tom was the Director of the National Records Center, and now he is the District Director of the Chicago District.

Not long ago Ale Mayorkas and a number of Homeland Security employees were paying us a visit. The reason I mentioned Ale is because of a story he told us about a visit someone made to NASA headquarters. I can't recall if it was during the evening or weekend, but it was during off hours. As they were going through one of the big buildings at NASA, the visitor came across a guy who was a custodian. The visitor said to the custodian: What do you do here? The janitor looked him right in the eye and said: I am helping to put a man on the moon.

The people at Homeland Security, including Don, are helping to ensure that our country is safe and secure. We are in their debt.

With that, I am looking to see if there is anyone else trying to speak. I understand the Senator from South Dakota may be emerging from the Republican cloakroom and looking for a moment to shine. If he doesn't get out here fast, I will just note the absence of a quorum and will let him call it off when he gets here.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in a few minutes to confirm Sarah Saldana to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A number of our friends have come to the floor opposing Ms. Saldana's nomination, but incredibly enough, I have not heard them question her qualifications. Their opposition appears to be in response to the President's decision to bring 5 million hard-working, law-abiding immigrants out of the shadows earlier this month.

Let me just say, as one Member of the Senate, we can quarrel about the timing and we can quarrel about the policy. I think for the most part the policy in the President's proposal is good. Do I wish we had done it as a body? Do I wish we had done our job? You bet I do. But I wish the President had delayed the announcement until a little bit later this year. He did not. So that is where we are.

Whether you like the President's Executive order or not, today it is about whether we take our responsibility seriously to ensure that Federal agencies have the leadership they need to operate efficiently and effectively.

The single most important ingredient of any organization, I do not care whether it is a governmental entity--I spent some time in the Navy--whether it is a military unit, whether it is a sports team, whether it is a school, business, whatever it might be, the single most important ingredient to the success of that entity is leadership.

This is an agency where we are talking about filling a big gap in leadership in Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We call it ICE. It is critical. It is a critical law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Listen to this: It has been without a Presidentially appointed leader now for more than 16 months. That is far too long, particularly when we consider all the issues we face along our borders and the more than 400 laws that this agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, enforces.

The agency plays a critical role in securing our borders. They take dangerous criminals off the streets. They send them back to their own countries in many instances. In fact, on any given day ICE arrests some 370 criminal aliens in the interior of our country, they have some 34,000 people in detention in this country, and they remove nearly 500 criminal aliens from our country ever day. Every day all that happens.

Managing such a large agency, with one of the most complex missions in the Federal Government, is a tall, tall order. This mission is made all the harder when the agency is forced to go month after month without permanent leadership.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement had the unfortunate distinction of finishing last in the annual survey of employee morale among Federal agencies. That is right--actually, not last; they were tied for last. In how many agencies were the employees really quizzed or questioned about whether they are satisfied with their work? They finished last out of not 100, not 200, not 300, but out of 314 agencies. When I visited the agency recently, employees told me that one of their biggest frustrations was the lack of Senate-confirmed leadership. Thankfully, this is one problem we can remedy, and we can remedy it today.

Ms. Saldana is a true American success story. She rose from humble beginnings in South Texas as the youngest of seven children. She went on to become an accomplished partner at a major law firm. She is now one of the Nation's top law enforcement officers. She could not be more qualified to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But do not take my word for it. One of our good friends here in the Senate, Mr. John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, felt strongly enough about her qualifications that he was good enough to come and introduce Ms. Saldana at her confirmation hearing before the committee I chair and the Presiding Officer serves on, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Cornyn told us that day that she was highly qualified, fiercely independent, and had served her State with honor.

This is what he said:

If respect for the rule of law is our standard, and I think

it should be, we would be hard pressed to find a person more

qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana.

His comments. That is high praise, and I could not agree more.

Nevertheless, Senator Cornyn and some of his colleagues now oppose Sarah Saldana's nomination--not because she is unqualified, not because she does not work hard, not because she does not have good values, but because she will have to carry out the President's recent Executive order on immigration. That may be understandable. I think it is also unfortunate. It does not punish the President to leave this position unfilled. It does not just punish the employees to leave this position unfilled. In the end, it punishes the citizens of this country. It makes it harder for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to accomplish its critical mission of helping to secure our borders. It makes it harder for them to do their job in terms of taking dangerous criminals off of our streets. And it hurts the men and women at ICE who deserve a leader to ensure this important agency runs as effectively as possible.

I believe the President acted within the bounds--I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but I believe the President acted within the bounds of the law in announcing his Executive action. While I may quarrel with the timing of it, I also feel very deeply if we--not in this body but in the other body on the other side of the Capitol--had done our job with respect to immigration reform, we would not have this dustup today over this nomination. But whether or not you agree with me, opposing Ms. Saldana's nomination will do nothing to change what the President has done--nothing.

I said it before; I will say it again. It is irresponsible for us to leave a critical agency such as this without a proven leader. It has been more than 16 months. It should not be another month or two or three.

So I hope Ms. Saldana--the first Hispanic person and the second woman ever to be nominated to run Immigration and Customs Enforcement--does not fall victim to politics here in the Senate. By all accounts, she is exactly what this critical agency needs: a proven leader, a respected member of the law enforcement community.

I urge all of my colleagues--Democratic and Republican and even the two Independents who are here with us serving their States--I urge you to support her. I am proud to do that today.

Thank you, Madam President.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, on behalf of the Delaware Delegation, I wish to honor the exemplary service of the superintendent of the First State National Historical Park, Mr. Russell P. Russ Smith. A native of New Castle, DE, and a devoted husband to his wife Jacqueline, two sons and two grandchildren, Russ returned to Delaware in May 2013 to cap his 42-year career with the National Park Service at the First State National Historical Park.

Russ began working for the National Park Service shortly after earning a degree in American history from the University of Delaware. For the 10 years prior to his work in Delaware, he managed Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in Fredericksburg, VA. His 28 years of field experience have included assignments at Prince William Forest Park, Fort Sumter National Monument, Independence National Historical Park, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site and George Washington Birthplace National Monument.

In 11 years at Independence National Historical Park, Russ oversaw nearly 100 employees and was responsible for telling the park's great story in American history by planning interpretive programs, creating museum and outdoor exhibits, and developing videos and publications. In 1989, Russ continued telling America's great stories when he was named chief of interpretation and visitor services for the Mid-Atlantic region, a position in which he pioneered the current interpretive planning system used by the National Park Service.

It is fitting that his long career led him back to Delaware, where in March of 2013, President Barack Obama authorized sites in Delaware to be a part of the First State National Monument. The monument tells the story of early colonial settlement leading up to the ratification of the constitution. For the first time, Delaware was included in the National Park System, and Russ was back home, leading the monument as superintendent. Under his watch, the First State National Monument turned into the First State National Historical Park, finally giving Delaware the national park it long deserved.

Russ has received the Mid-Atlantic Region's Freeman Tilden Award, the highest award for interpretation, the Director's Design Award for his interpretive plan for the Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site, a Superior Service Award from the Department of the Interior for redesigning the National Park Service interpretive planning system and the National Park Service's Appleman-Judd-Lewis Award for excellence in cultural resource management.

Russ is a visionary and a leader. His work touched as many as 70 national park units from Maine to West Virginia and has allowed Americans and visitors from around the world to understand and enjoy the history and beauty that our Nation's national parks and monuments hold. Russ has devoted his life's work to our Nation's park service and has done a tremendous job of inspiring others to enjoy our Nation's history.

On behalf of Senator Chris Coons and Congressman John Carney, I wholeheartedly thank Russ for his 42 years of service to the National Park Service and to our Nation. His model leadership and dedication to educate those of all generations is his legacy. We offer our sincere congratulations on a job well done, and wish him, his wife Jacqueline, and their family many happy, healthy and successful years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is good to see you here today. The place is a little empty. I am glad the Presiding Officer, our staff, and our pages are all here.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two critical nominations to the Department of Homeland Security. They are Russ Deyo to be the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security and Sarah Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The committee which I am privileged to lead, along with Dr. Tom Coburn,

the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is responsible for working with the administration and others to help protect our Nation's security at home and abroad. At the same time, we strive to make sure Federal agencies work better and more efficiently with the resources that are entrusted to them by the American people.

During my years of public service, I have learned that the most important ingredient in helping organizations to work is leadership. I do not care whether the organization is a body such as this, a governing body, I do not care whether it is a sports team, a business, college or university, a school, the most important ingredient in the success of that organization is leadership.

The Presiding Officer is one who has led the National Guard for the State of Montana for a number of years. He knows just what I mean. I thank him for his service and for his leadership.

When it comes to the Department of Homeland Security, the absence of leadership throughout the Department has been a great challenge and a major cause of the low standing in terms of employee morale that Department faces.

As we know, the Congress is going to soon wrap up our session for the year--in a couple of days. Senators have the obligation to fill two key leadership posts in the Department of Homeland Security in the days that lie ahead. One is the Under Secretary for Management. Mr. Deyo has been nominated by the President. I believe he is a Republican. The other is the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sarah Saldana.

As we all know, this Department plays a critical role in protecting our Nation from a number of threats, including terrorism, cyber attacks, and natural disasters, just to name a few. Given the Department's significant role in the security of our country, it is critical that Secretary Jeh Johnson have a full leadership team in place. That includes Russ Deyo as his Under Secretary for Management. That is the third highest position in the Department.

I wish to take a couple of minutes to explain why Mr. Deyo's nomination is so important. As of this week more than 10 months will have passed since the last Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras, stepped down from his post. He was an excellent public servant, a great leader. We salute him and wish him well. But he has been gone for almost a year, and since then the Department has not had Senate-confirmed leadership. They need it.

Under Secretary Borras was widely respected by members of our committee in the Senate and the House and others for his leadership, management expertise, and most of all, maybe, for his candor. He helped the Department make strides in many areas and led the Department to its first clean financial audit--something the Department was able to achieve again this year for the second year in a row. Why is that important? I have a friend, and if you ask him how he is doing, he says: Compared to what? Well the Department of Homeland Security--it took them almost a decade to get an unqualified audit, a clean financial audit. The Department of Defense has been around a whole lot longer--since the end of World War II. They have yet to get a clean financial audit. They are making some progress finally. But the Department of Homeland Security achieved it 2 years ago and then again this year.

I think it is safe to say that the Department needs somebody with the same kind of commitment and leadership Rafael Borras brought. I believe, Secretary Johnson believes, and the President believes Russ Deyo is that person.

Mr. Deyo had an impressive career in the private sector, for 27 years helping to lead Johnson & Johnson, one of the top companies not just in America but in the world. There, he was the general counsel, and he was vice president for administration. We are so lucky that someone with his capabilities, his commitment, his smarts, his leadership skills, and his integrity is willing to serve in the Federal Government at this level. He also spent the last 15 years serving on the executive committee at Johnson & Johnson, which is the principal management group responsible for the company's global operations. He was also a partner at a major U.S. law firm.

Russ Deyo is no stranger to public service and working with law enforcement organizations. He was assistant U.S. attorney for New Jersey for 8 years. That included a period of time as chief of public corruption unit there.

His perspective from the private and public sectors will be an invaluable asset to Secretary Jeh Johnson, particularly as the Secretary implements his Unity of Effort Initiative at the Department, which strives to help the Department operate in a more unified, cohesive manner across all components.

If confirmed, Mr. Deyo will have a number of other challenges on his plate. For example, our friends at the Government Accountability Office continue to remind us that the acquisition and budgeting systems at the Department of Homeland Security are not fully mature. In fact, the overall management of the Department remains on the Government Accountability Office's high-risk list of government operations that need urgent attention. Of course, if Mr. Deyo is confirmed, he will inherit the challenges of improving morale across the Department. These are tough challenges, and some have been around since the creation of the Department. But I believe Mr. Deyo has the leadership experience and the skills necessary to tackle these challenges and to really make a difference.

I will take a moment here, if I can. Every year there is a nonprofit organization that looks across the Federal Government and asks questions of a lot of employees to really ascertain where morale is high, where some of the favorite places are for people to work in the Federal Government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a number of years has led the pack there. There are roughly 15 big Departments that are part of that survey, but all told, there are something like 314 Federal agencies that are surveyed to make up this list, and the Department of Homeland Security runs dead last among the big Departments that are surveyed. Out of all of the Federal agencies that are surveyed, and there are 314 in all, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Sarah Saldana has been nominated to lead--dead last. Dead last. One of the reasons why, when I talk to people at the Department of Homeland Security, employees, whether they happen to be customs agents, whether they happen to be folks down on the border, Border Patrol, whether they happen to be TSA folks--whatever role they are playing across the country and around the world, among the major factors they point to, explaining the low morale, is lack of leadership, lack of confirmed leadership. We have worked so hard to address that. We have two holes left. One of them will be filled by Mr. Deyo--we need to confirm him--and the other by Sarah Saldana.

Here is what former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff--Judge Chertoff-- had to say when he introduced Mr. Deyo at his confirmation hearing before the homeland security committee earlier this year. Here is what the former Secretary said:

Russ brings to the position he has been nominated for a

broad range of experience with one of the best enterprises in

the world.

That is Johnson & Johnson.

You will find him to be a smart, experienced, and devoted

public servant who will actually bring a unique set of skills

to this job which are very critical.

This is a former Secretary of the Department. He said:

I could not give a stronger endorsement to Mr. Deyo for

this position.

Mr. Deyo has also received strong endorsements from three former Under Secretaries for Management at DHS, people who have had this job, done this job before: Paul Schneider, Elaine Duke, and the immediate past Under Secretary, Rafael Borras, whom I mentioned earlier. Here is what they had to say. Here is what the three of them, in unison, had to say about Russ Deyo:

Russ Deyo is an outstanding choice by the President to be

Under Secretary for Management.

An impressive leader, he brings the requisite skills,

experience, and leadership to this important position. He is

recognized as a professional, unflappable statesman who can

meet head-on the challenges this position faces and get

results.

I have had the privilege of meeting with him. I don't make snap judgments about people, but he is one impressive

human being, one impressive leader. Everything I have learned about Mr. Deyo over the past several months has led me to conclude that he would be not only an exceptional candidate to be a manager at DHS but a terrific Under Secretary if confirmed.

I urge all my colleagues to support the nomination of Russ Deyo.

I wish to take a few more moments to turn to the nomination of Sarah Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security.

We call it ICE, the acronym. As I said earlier, of the 314 Federal agencies that are evaluated top to bottom in terms of employee satisfaction, ICE was dead last, No. 314.

It has been almost 1\1/2\ years since they had a Senate-confirmed leader. They need one--not just anyone, they need a terrific leader. We believe Sarah Saldana fills that bill and meets the qualifications and the needs very well.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE, as we call it--is a vital law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. As I said earlier, it has been without a Presidentially appointed and confirmed leader for almost 1\1/2\ years--far too long, particularly considering all the issues we face along our borders and the more than 400 laws--think of that--that this agency, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is required to enforce.

Some of my colleagues may not be familiar with what ICE does and why it is so critical for the agency to have Senate-confirmed leadership in place.

I wish to take a minute to address that. ICE is one of the Nation's law enforcement agencies, with more than 19,000 employees in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 48 foreign countries. What do all these people do? That is a fair question.

In 2013 ICE special agents initiated over 125,000 new investigations, made over 40,000 criminal arrests, seized $1.3 billion in currency and assets and took $1.6 million pounds of narcotics and other dangerous drugs off our streets. That is just part of what they do.

On any given day ICE arrests 370 criminal aliens in the interior of our country, has 34,000 people in detention, and moves nearly 500 criminal aliens from our country--on any given day. Managing such a large agency, with one of the most complex missions in the Federal Government, is a tall order. Thankfully, Ms. Saldana has agreed to step up to this challenge.

She is a true American success story. She rose from humble beginnings in South Texas as the youngest of seven children to become an accomplished partner at a major law firm. She is now the Nation's top law enforcement officers.

Ms. Saldana was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2011 to her current position as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. She has a distinguished record representing the U.S. Government as the senior law enforcement officer in one of the largest districts in the Nation.

It spans some 100 counties. I don't know how many counties the Presiding Officer has in the State of Montana--we have three--but she presides over a law enforcement operation that has 100 counties in the northern part of Texas.

In this role, she deals as closely and extensively as anyone else with the threats this country faces every day from transnational criminal networks. This experience will serve her well if confirmed to lead ICE.

Don't take my word for it. One of our good friends in the Senate, John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, felt strongly enough about her qualifications that he personally introduced Ms. Saldana at her confirmation hearing before the committee Dr. Coburn and I lead, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Senator Cornyn said about Sarah Saldana:

In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the past

decade, Ms. Saldana has served our State with honor, fighting

corrupt public officials, organized crime, sex traffickers,

and other dangerous criminals.

That sounds like a highly qualified candidate to me. That is not all Senator Cornyn had to say about Ms. Saldana. He went on to say this as well:

If respect for the rule of law is our standard, and I think

it should be, we would be hard pressed to find a person more

qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana.

That is high praise indeed and I couldn't agree more.

Some are arguing we should not confirm Ms. Saldana because of the President's recent Executive action on immigration. This decision will provide, though, relief from deportation for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows today, law-abiding people who are productive members of our communities.

Still, some argue the President's actions should preclude the Senate from confirming even a highly qualified candidate such as Sarah Saldana to this critical position. I think that is absurd.

We have before the Senate a highly qualified candidate, a person who--according to her neighbor and the senior Senator from Texas--is fiercely independent, has served with honor in her current role, and respects the rule of law.

It does not punish the President to leave this position unfilled, it punishes the citizens of our country. It makes it harder for ICE to accomplish its mission, and it hurts the men and women at ICE who deserve a leader to ensure that this agency runs as efficiently as possible.

I believe the President acted within the bounds of the law in announcing his executive action. But whether you agree with me, opposing Ms. Saldana's nomination will do nothing to change what the President has done, nothing.

I hope Ms. Saldana, the first Hispanic person and second woman to be nominated to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, does not fall victim to politics as usual in the Senate. She is by all accounts exactly what this critical agency needs: a proven leader and a respected member of the law enforcement community.

What do they say about integrity? If you have it, nothing else matters. Integrity, if you don't have it, nothing else matters. She has it.

She will have a tough job ahead of her if she is confirmed this week, but I believe she is more than up to the task. I urge so strongly for our colleagues to join me, to join Senator Cornyn, and others to support her. We will never regret it.

With that, I am looking around the Senate Chamber. I know we are going to have a lot of folks voting, but I don't see anybody to speak.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I have been asked to lead us through this wrapup session, even though it is a little early to wrap up, but I want to walk through it if I can.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2754 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous

consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3572, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 343, H.R. 1206, and H.R. 1378, which was received from the House en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

The bill (H.R. 1206) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

The bill (H.R. 1378) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5050, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5185, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.